Dark Lord Darkington Darkingly frowned while stroking his chin. A thought came to him that was so devious, so devastating, that he had to share it with someone. A useless henchman stood patiently before his table. He would have to do.

“Because it needs to burn!” Dark Lord Darkington Darkingly pounded the table with his fist to hammer the point home.

“What will happen to you?”

“What will happen to me?” Dark Lord Darkington Darkingly stroked his chin in thought. This is where the plan failed. The henchman wasn’t useless after all.

“OK, Toby. Make sure you eat all your food. Remember, if you finish your peas, we’ll take you to the mall to buy you a new game.”

Dark Lord Darkington Darkingly eyed his peas suspiciously. His father always wanted him to eat his peas. They needed to burn. The whole world needed to burn!

Dark lords have been a staple throughout the human narrative. They show up in religions, in allegorical stories, horror stories, and in fantasy literature. They exist simply to give contrast to the protagonist(s), make them symbols of good, and to reinforce the reader’s moral beliefs. Dark lords represent evil, the other, the unknown. And we, by transposition, are on the right side of life, love, and happiness....Continue reading the Original Blog Post.

I had an idea for a "dark lord" type character. He was a solitary, aloof sort of fellow who studied magic and sorcery, but he really isn't evil. He doesn't hate humanity. He doesn't especially love it, either, but so long as others leave him in peace he'll return the favor. He doesn't want to take over the world. The only thing he wants to conquer is himself. But because of his aloof nature and dark clothing and study of magic, the surrounding populace thinks he's evil and treats him as such.

When I was a kid and first saw the villain who wanted to destroy the world in some cartoon or comic book, my first thought was, "This guy does realize he lives on the world he wants to destroy, right? Isn't that a bit of a problem?"

I love to play with this trope. I've got everything from the stereotypical Sauron in the spiked armor to the ruthless megalomaniacs running about in my writing. It mostly ends there and then can sometimes be looked into. Others, while, not of the destroy the world type, at least want to take over it. Then, the world I've created for them is meant to be play with the trope and lot's of other Fantasy ones too. Tall, dark and spiky is probably better behaved then Tall, light and shiny. Then again, maybe not. They all have a reason to fight and it usually ends badly.

Good article though, pointing out the general flatness they tend to have. But, hey, still Fantasy, the Big Bad Evil Guy will be there in a myriad of forms. Keep the spiked armor though, that's too classy to go out of style.

I do have an issue with this article: the dark lord represents evil, sure, but where is the writer getting this business about "the unknown, the other" or "they vs. we"?
I suspect that the writer might have a bias against moral absolutism. Or at least, they have an issue against the idea of parables about morality. Perhaps, they conflate this worldview with the action of "vilifying the other/unknown". And so they see the dark lord archetype as a symbol for both. Or something.

As far as my relationship to this trope: I've never had a dark lord character. I almost included a parody of one in a story but dropped it.

When I was a kid and first saw the villain who wanted to destroy the world in some cartoon or comic book, my first thought was, "This guy does realize he lives on the world he wants to destroy, right? Isn't that a bit of a problem?"

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I've seen stories where this fact is brought-up and justified.
The idea itself is never the problem, it's all about execution.

In this very real world where we live, there have been Emperors that really wanted to live forever and they sought desperately a way to somehow conquer Death. Other rulers experienced a very intense desire to take over the world, and since they believed that it was actually possible they did their best to attain this goal and they did terrible things in the process.

Apart of historic examples like that, we also have (by loads!) people with emotional sets that are either broken or missing and they find great enjoyment in causing any type of suffering to others. We are just lucky that they do not have supernatural powers! There are other types that would love to destroy the world even if it means their own death, and they would be happy and satisfied to kill all of us by releasing a deadly supervirus or setting the atmosphere on fire or what not.

So yeah, I have no problem with Sauron and Voldemort and others like them.

I agree anyway that it's a good idea to explore a Dark Lord in depth, to really know what is behind the character. They are important too, and getting to know them in a more personal level can help a lot in the development of a good Fantasy story.

My Alice into Darkness story has confused some readers, since they get the impression that Alice Layttel is the super villain of the story. Well, I do not blame them since Alice is a cold-blooded psychopath that enjoys stabbing children to death. One of my readers even believed that the goal of Queen Amethyst was to get rid of Alice one way or another!

Alice is actually some strange type of anti-heroine, while the true Dark Lord of that story acts from a distance and she only appears in person near the end of the adventure.

My main protagonist is the emperor of the realm, but instead of sitting on a throne inside a volcano, he takes care of everything himself. He operates incognito so as not to let slip the secret that the emperor is a wizard. He's only emperor of one dominion, but his goal is to unite five ancient swords that will give him godlike power. This goal is sidetracked when his horcrux thingy gets swiped out from under him and promptly lost. The protagonists happen to find it, and hearing of the reward the emperor has offered for it, set out to give it back, not even knowing what it really is. The emperor, meanwhile, watches them from afar, realizes the main protagonist looks like he could be the son of someone he killed, and goes after them. The protagonists and the antagonist spend part of the book heading straight toward each other and the protagonists don't even know he's coming for them. Once he catches up to them, he manages to cause trouble for them but not to take his horcrux back. Which is a little redundant of a goal because they're literally trying to return it to him, but he wants this to end on his terms. He wants the protagonists safely dead even if they're not planning to kill him at all. Besides, if he waits for them to bring the horcrux back, someone might steal it from them, and they might be more inclined to destroy it and kill him. His only friend is his pet snake who makes sarcastic remarks in snake language. The only emotions he is capable of are "good mood", annoyance, anger, blind rage, and "calmly roasting his inferiors". (His snake isn't the only one with a wicked sense of humor.) He's not the evil laughing type, or the destroy the world type. He just thinks it would be pretty awesome to rule the whole world instead of just part of it. Those selfish good wizards can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the evil wizards deserve the key to unlimited power simply because it exists.

In a reversal of the typical, he, the Dragon, is actually pure evil and irredeemable, while his master, the Big Bad, was corrupted into choosing a dark path and actually gets redeemed in the end while his apprentice is destroyed.

Stereotypical dark lord? Eh. Maybe. He's not the big bad, he answers to his teacher who taught him magic. He goes rogue after his teacher orders the other dark wizards to leave him for dead. You mostly see him operate solo. Not like Sauron commanding hordes of orcs or Voldemort sending his Death Eaters to cause havoc.

In my latest short story, the heroine meets a priest who lives in Incarnachant, a magic/fantasy realm. They stop at a town that is a blatant parody of fantasy RPGs, and the priest shops for a backstory. He chooses the Dark Lord backstory, which in turn warps reality to make everything part of the backstory actually happen. He then takes on the characteristics of a stereotypical Dark Lord and starts complaining about heroes breaking into his house every other week. He eventually becomes the gardener of the heroine's next door neighbour.

When I was a kid and first saw the villain who wanted to destroy the world in some cartoon or comic book, my first thought was, "This guy does realize he lives on the world he wants to destroy, right? Isn't that a bit of a problem?"

Click to expand...

Even when the dark lord doesn't directly indicate his intention to destroy a world, the result is undeniable. They are always shown in wastelands, or ruins ruling over henchmen of questionable intellectual acuity, or of insubstantial moral codes. What do you think will happen when the world is ruled by them? They employ destruction to achieve their goals. What civilization will survive that and why would they (the dark lord) want to live in it?

I will not deny that I do. Such absolutism is extremely rare. Every person (characters, no matter the race, are modeled after our human experiences) has at least a seed of good or evil in them. Morality is a spectrum.

We often talk about internal conflict of the protagonist. The source of the internal conflict can be anything, but I often see it manifest as moral choices; greater good vs personal good, do what's right vs doing what's needed, etc. Why is this expected in a protagonist but not the dark lord antagonist. Even if you take one of the most common stories in the Western hemisphere, what we assume is the dark lord himself has known good.

I will not deny that I do. Such absolutism is extremely rare. Every person (characters, no matter the race, are modeled after our human experiences) has at least a seed of good or evil in them. Morality is a spectrum.

Click to expand...

How did race enter this conversation?
Not to turn this into an argument over moral philosophy but morality existing on a spectrum still means that there must be a good and an evil. It's just that rather than a harsh line between black and white, you instead have a blur of grey. I think that some characters can exist on both sides of the spectrum as well as the middle.

We often talk about internal conflict of the protagonist. The source of the internal conflict can be anything, but I often see it manifest as moral choices; greater good vs personal good, do what's right vs doing what's needed, etc. Why is this expected in a protagonist but not the dark lord antagonist. Even if you take one of the most common stories in the Western hemisphere, what we assume is the dark lord himself has known good.

Click to expand...

A story is an episode of development for the protagonist. This development is brought about through conflict, both internal and external.
The reason why the protag and the antag are held to different expectations is because they are different narrative tools and thus serve different functions. The antagonist, speaking in strictly practical terms, is meant to externalize conflict. This is why antagonists can take the form of a natural disaster or fate while a protagonist must always be a person (or humanized thing).
If you're writing a story that is about the protagonist being/becoming a good/better person, there is little practical necessity to adding the bells-and-whistles of moral complexity to the villain. Of course, you can if you want. I think most writers do.

I'm having a hard time expressing my thoughts here so I hope I'm making sense.
The point is: there can be practical use to pure evil villains and I don't think it's wise to discourage their use entirely. We should be discussing when you should and when you shouldn't use dark lords - the best way to use the archetype rather than just saying "never use it".

The antagonist, speaking in strictly practical terms, is meant to externalize conflict.

Click to expand...

I think this is the difference between our viewpoints. I don't consider an antagonist's function as externalizing the protaganist's conflict. I see the antagonist as a character working against the goals of our POV character. I believe a story should be symmetrical. Meaning, an author should be able to flip the POV from the protagonist to the antagonist and be able to write the story to convincing completion.

That is the crux of the article. An antagonist isn't a function, it's a dynamic character in its own right.

Oddly enough, I'm writing a story where a reader will point to an antagonist and say "ah ha! Pure evil!" But there are always twists to a tale. What a reader may think is an antagonist is just a trick of the mind.

I agree. Just not to the point that one character is purely in either state.

I think this is the difference between our viewpoints. I don't consider an antagonist's function as externalizing the protagonist's conflict. I see the antagonist as a character working against the goals of our POV character. I believe a story should be symmetrical. Meaning, an author should be able to flip the POV from the protagonist to the antagonist and be able to write the story to convincing completion.

That is the crux of the article. An antagonist isn't a function, it's a dynamic character in its own right.

Click to expand...

I think this might just be an irreconcilable difference between how you approach fiction and how I approach fiction.
But hey just for the sake of keeping the discussion going...

Working off of your definition: "the antagonist as a character working against the goals of our POV character". Nothing about this definition requires that the antagonist be a fully fleshed-out character. He can be but that's not necessary for him to fulfill his narrative purpose.
I'm trying to argue that if a "character who embodies characteristics that we would traditionally call evil" works in the story, then there's no reason for the writer not to use that character.

I genuinely don't believe that Lord of the Rings would be better if Sauron wasn't pure evil. I would wager that No Country For Old Men would've been worse if they tried to make Anton Chigurh more morally dynamic. And The Birds wouldn't be a better movie if Hitchcock made sure that the birds could be the heroes of their own story. These narratives all have their own story, their own themes and messages, to convey and the creators created the antagonists for the story.

Also, antagonists serve a function in the story just like setting, tone, pace and the protagonist serve functions in the story. They can also be dynamic characters but if an antagonist doesn't first-and-foremost serve the function of an antagonist, then they are not an antagonist.

Oddly enough, I'm writing a story where a reader will point to an antagonist and say "ah ha! Pure evil!" But there are always twists to a tale. What a reader may think is an antagonist is just a trick of the mind.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I have very few characters who can even be called "mostly evil" let alone "pure evil". Most of my stories are heroes vs. heroes. Mostly anti-heroes since I also have very few "pure good" characters.
However, I know that there can be some use of morally simplistic characters in other stories. Those just aren't the stories I deal with.

The good news is you recognize the problem. I don't want to offer specifics as my ideas may unravel what you've already written. What you're dealing with now is the character development of your dark lord. Flesh him out.

The pursuit of power can be a strong motivation. People need a sense of control, some more than others. The pursuit of power isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many people want control over something because they think they can make that something better than it is.

Another motivation for power is survival. Think of two neighboring kingdoms, one with resources and one without. The second may want to acquire the resources of the first (power over resources) through violence.

Finally, have you ever heard of the top being lonely? Maybe your villain is struggling with this exact problem. What does he do now? That's his dilemma. Maybe he does as the Greek gods did. Maybe he seeks the company of mortals because, at his heart, he is mortal with mortal needs.

Ah, the BBE (TM)...the Big Bad Evil. In my writing gig for the Legend of the Five Rings game setting, the desirability of a BBE to oppose the characters is a matter of much debate. In the original setting for the story (when its IP belonged to the original owner, a company known as AEG), the story started with the various clans of "magical samurai" vying for power in the world of Rokugan; this soon evolved into the realization that the TRUE antagonist was Fu Leng, a fallen and evil demigod i.e. the BBE. The story was excellent and, in this case, the BBE worked very well.

That was in the mid-late 90s. The debate began as the game setting continued for the next 20 years (and it's still going strong). The story kept going back to the BBE well in one form or another, and it became...kinda repetitive. "Oh, look, another massive, evil, supernatural threat. We'd better all put aside our political intrigue and internecine wars and unite to defeat it." This made me start looking at the whole idea of a BBE in some detail.

So, Sauron is one of the preeminent "prototypes", and probably THE preeminent one until Voldemort came along. Interestingly, what makes Sauron work so well, I concluded, is that he explicitly is NOT a character--he's a plot device. If you haven't read The Silmarillion, then all you know about Sauron from LotR itself is that he's wants to rule over Middle Earth, that he'll do all sorts of evil things to accomplish that, and that he's really powerful BUT he sunk a lot of that power into the One Ring, the story's MacGuffin. And that's it. We never see him on screen, he doesn't have any lines (yes, the Mouth of Sauron kinda speaks for him, but that's not the same)...he just remains a looming, ominous presence, hovering over the story like one of his winged Nazgul. That works quite well. We don't NEED to know anything about him other than this because, again, he's not a character--he's just a plot element (and, btw, those Nazgul? They were really the closest thing we got to an "on screen" expression of Sauron...more a way of letting Sauron actually DO some things himself in the story, by proxy, without really turning him into an interactive character).

The trouble with introducing a BBE as an actual character is that he (or she) is immediately diminished. And the more they appear on-screen, the more diminished they risk getting. The writer/reader collaboration that is the foundation of every story simply can't maintain the degree of menace a BBE really needs when they get "humanized". Legend of the Five Rings had a BBE named Iuchiban who, for the first ten or so years of the game, was just a name spoken in ominous tones. He was what the reader imagined him to be and, with so little detail, readers could bring the full weight of all the dark things they could imagine to bear on how they perceived him. And then...he was brought back into the story as a character. All of a sudden, he was a guy, he had lines, through which he revealed his motivations, he acted and reacted...he was no longer "malign and ominous off-screen presence", but rather "evil on-screen guy". It just wasn't the same. He kinda futzed around being all dark and conquer-ey, before having his ass kicked. Kinda lame, actually.

So I guess my contribution to this thread is...if you're going to have a BBE in your story, give some serious consideration to making him (or her) the looming, dangerous "thing" off in the distance, wreathed in smoke and shadow and menace. Your on-screen antagonists can be his (or her) minions, with all the things that characters need i.e. characterization, motivations, flaws, strengths, etc. As soon as the BBE comes on-screen, you risk turning them--no matter how powerful or evil you portray them--into "just a guy".

I avoid the dark lord trope like the plague a lot. in a current story, the "dark lords" are just people who care deeply for their mother and would do anything to free her from her unjust imprisonment. the thing is, she's a ancient earth spirit that could surely end the world if she is freed. they don't really know this at all as their "mother" keeps this a secret. there's your conflict among my antagonist....and they're centipede people.

Instead of going for my usual moral ambiguity type answer I think I'll just put this in gamer terms. Anyone else play the CIV's and Alpha Centauri games? Because if you do some of you may well understand my style of game. I build. Build, build build, play nice and even grovel with the other races, develop advanced tech, finish off the tech chain, and then when it's time - I NUKE EM! I nuke em all!!! Friends, enemies, the ones I barely even know! I love to watch em burn! Their cities fall! My rivals call me wicked!

Does that make me evil? A dark lord? Or am I simply misunderstood? (I mean clearly I was misunderstood - but that doesn't preclude the other possibilities!)

My point here is simple - do not deny my existence. Don't send social workers around to my home. Don't bother trying to justify me either. I don't want to be explained away. I just want to nuke em all! And the only thing keeping me in line is fear of the consequences- which is why I make all nice - until there are no more consequences. (And I could be your neighbor!)

By the way - running for President of the World soon. Appreciate your vote!!! (You can trust me!)

Instead of going for my usual moral ambiguity type answer I think I'll just put this in gamer terms. Anyone else play the CIV's and Alpha Centauri games? Because if you do some of you may well understand my style of game. I build. Build, build build, play nice and even grovel with the other races, develop advanced tech, finish off the tech chain, and then when it's time - I NUKE EM! I nuke em all!!! Friends, enemies, the ones I barely even know! I love to watch em burn! Their cities fall! My rivals call me wicked!

Does that make me evil? A dark lord? Or am I simply misunderstood? (I mean clearly I was misunderstood - but that doesn't preclude the other possibilities!)

My point here is simple - do not deny my existence. Don't send social workers around to my home. Don't bother trying to justify me either. I don't want to be explained away. I just want to nuke em all! And the only thing keeping me in line is fear of the consequences- which is why I make all nice - until there are no more consequences. (And I could be your neighbor!)

By the way - running for President of the World soon. Appreciate your vote!!! (You can trust me!)

Cheers, Greg.

Click to expand...

Man, I would so nuke Greg if only...well, a few more things to build first I think.

But am I getting your vote first?!!! (You know I really am just misunderstood - that should be my campaign slogan! I mean really I'm a nice guy. A pussy cat. While I'm building. After that things change.)